In Response to Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that.... : That is very true, although I don't know why they brought in the FB, but they were forced to abandon the run in order to preserve time (they could not afford to waste it) and try to score quickly due to the time constraints. (Long passes) Both teams could not average 5 minute possessions. That would have given them a 6 possessions a game. It was already reduced to 8 as it was. Since they could not get the ball back, they had no choice. When you have to hurry more than usual, it causes mental mistakes (7 dropped balls) forced passes, one dimensional ect... It also makes you easier to defend. The jints won all their play-off games this way. That and getting all the breaks.Posted by pezz4pats

see i dont get that, you have the lead in the 4th, why not take some time off the clock and give your defense some rest?

So I guess that those of you who think that this is all on the defense is admitting that this offense needs a defense to hold its opponent under 17 points in order to win.. That will be tough on any d.

^ Priceless. We were up the entire 2nd half. There was no desperation to "throw long passes" we shouldn't have been rushed. WE WERE WINNING. Rushing your plays on offense only leads to putting the weaker half of your roster back on the field quicker. Undesputable. Talking in circles, talking in circles. edit: sorry in repsonse to pezzPosted by TrueChamp

exactly, but really the weaker part of the team for most of the second half was the offense....they really went away from what was working

In Response to Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that.... : see i dont get that, you have the lead in the 4th, why not take some time off the clock and give your defense some rest?Posted by redsoxfan94

Because the D was already eating up the clock and I don't think anyone was comfortable with that lead. They did have one 5 minute drive that failed but the jints also matched that with another 5+ minute drive of their own that did not fail. The jints had 4, five minute drives in the second half and only 1 failed to score. The other just kept the ball away, which is what they wanted. :(

In Response to Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that.... : Because the D was already eating up the clock and I don't think anyone was comfortable with that lead. They did have one 5 minute drive that failed but the jints also matched that with another 5+ minute drive of their own that did not fail. The jints had 4, five minute drives in the second half and only 1 failed to score. The other just kept the ball away, which is what they wanted. :(Posted by pezz4pats

just more of a reason the pats need a better running game....love benny, but they need someone else if they hope to get brady his 4th ring....maybe ridley and vereen can do the job, but thats unknown yet and in the game where ridley could have been used the most, BB sat him...

In Response to Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that.... : just more of a reason the pats need a better running game....love benny, but they need someone else if they hope to get brady his 4th ring....maybe ridley and vereen can do the job, but thats unknown yet and in the game where ridley could have been used the most, BB sat him...Posted by redsoxfan94

Ya true. I had a feeling Ridley was in the plans but the game dictated otherwise. He kept him instead of Faulk. (which kinda sucked)Woody can catch.Ridley and Vereen will be fine. They had a year to learn and now can put it to practice. Vereen looked real good for what limited time he played. Benny didn't really start until his 3rd year. BB doesn't rush RBs. Pun intended. :0

So I guess that those of you who think that this is all on the defense is admitting that this offense needs a defense to hold its opponent under 17 points in order to win.. That will be tough on any d.Posted by sporter81

Except for the Giants defense, which essentially did just that four games in a row to win the Superbowl.

It's not all about points. It's about getting your offense more chances to move the ball. They didn't generate a single turnover, a single 3 and out. Their game plan was decided by the Giants, who consciously forced them down the field running the clock since the beginning of the game to limit how much New England possessed the ball.

Second, the defense had to pick up slack. The best player on the team not named Brady was all but gone.

Seriously, I've heard people defend this defense because they had a scrub player playing nickel instead of outside CB, stating that it changed the outcome.

Not one person assailing this offense has the guts to even talk about Gronkowski's injury and the impact it had on the game.

You can't blame the D for the SB loss, they basically allowed one TD. The last one we had to give them or watch them kick a FG with 6 second on the clock.

This game was lost by the Safety to start the game. Without those two points we are looking at a 4 point lead on that last drive and the Giants need a TD not a FG. The Pats D was stopping them all day. If they scored and won good for them but I thik that D was not allowing a TD if it wasn't to get the ball back.

In Response to Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that.... : just more of a reason the pats need a better running game....love benny, but they need someone else if they hope to get brady his 4th ring....maybe ridley and vereen can do the job, but thats unknown yet and in the game where ridley could have been used the most, BB sat him...Posted by redsoxfan94

In Response to Re: McGinnest said on ESPN Podcast today with Adam Jones that.... : Except for the Giants defense, which essentially did just that four games in a row to win the Superbowl. It's not all about points. It's about getting your offense more chances to move the ball. They didn't generate a single turnover, a single 3 and out. Their game plan was decided by the Giants, who consciously forced them down the field running the clock since the beginning of the game to limit how much New England possessed the ball. Second, the defense had to pick up slack. The best player on the team not named Brady was all but gone. Seriously, I've heard people defend this defense because they had a scrub player playing nickel instead of outside CB, stating that it changed the outcome. Not one person assailing this offense has the guts to even talk about Gronkowski's injury and the impact it had on the game.Posted by zbellino

Except for the Giants defense, which essentially did just that four games in a row to win the Superbowl. It's not all about points. It's about getting your offense more chances to move the ball. They didn't generate a single turnover, a single 3 and out. Their game plan was decided by the Giants, who consciously forced them down the field running the clock since the beginning of the game to limit how much New England possessed the ball. Second, the defense had to pick up slack. The best player on the team not named Brady was all but gone. Seriously, I've heard people defend this defense because they had a scrub player playing nickel instead of outside CB, stating that it changed the outcome. Not one person assailing this offense has the guts to even talk about Gronkowski's injury and the impact it had on the game. Posted by zbellino

Officially the defense didn't generate a single turnover or a single 3 and out this is true. But they did force fumbles and they had a three and out after Brady's interception negated by penalty.

The defense needs to be fixed, I think everyone would agree with that. And the offense needs a working running game to help Brady.

If it weren't for a Lee Evans drop and a chip shot field goal miss by Cundiff, the Pats D would have blown it again.

The defense is bad, which is why they were worst in the league during the regular season. It's not just about points, giving up yards controls the clock, keeps the Pats offense off the field, and put the Pats offense in bad field position. Yards mean alot, accept it.

You can't blame the D for the SB loss, they basically allowed one TD. The last one we had to give them or watch them kick a FG with 6 second on the clock. This game was lost by the Safety to start the game. Without those two points we are looking at a 4 point lead on that last drive and the Giants need a TD not a FG. The Pats D was stopping them all day. If they scored and won good for them but I thik that D was not allowing a TD if it wasn't to get the ball back.Posted by Tomhab

The safety was 1 play. The int was 1 play.The D's inability to get even 1 turn over and stop the jints in less than 8 plays and before the 50yrd line (which caused bad field position) and only 2 sacks and not getting even 1, 3 & out allowing the jints to hold the ball for 5 minutes at a time, happened throughout the whole game.The int and safety cost the Pats 2 opportunities to score. The best teams only score on half their possessions any way.The D not getting the ball back quickly cost the Pats 4 opportunities to score. Which is worse?